Martin Hardie alleges Dank will give evidence to AFL anti doping tribunal

[threesixpio]

Just to add to what I was saying before here is a clause from the Anti Doping Rules of the AFL:

15. PROOF OF DOPING

15.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions

Facts related to Anti-Doping Rule Violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.31 The following rules of proof shall be applicable in Doping cases:

(c) The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Player or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Player or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice.

My question is has there been a decision against Dank which fits into the definition above? If so, I think that the established facts can then be used against the players.

 

[The_Wookie]

At the end of the day, ASADA have attempted to subpoena Alavi and Charters, because they are crucial to ASADA's case. ASADA need both to sign affidavits and be reliable witnesses at the anti-doping tribunal. To think otherwise is ignoring the obvious.

they may bolster the case, but its unlikely that a case that has three weeks set aside to be heard relies solely on two people attending. GG and others are focussed on the links, the links dont matter a damn if someone else admits it that they received it or were given it. At that point it doesnt matter how it got there.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

At the end of the day, ASADA have attempted to subpoena Alavi and Charters, because they are crucial to ASADA's case. ASADA need both to sign affidavits and be reliable witnesses at the anti-doping tribunal. To think otherwise is ignoring the obvious.

It may SEEM that way. But it is absolutely hilarious how very few of the Essendon supporters see Hird's Federal court attempt and subsequent appeal as SEEMINGLY looking like a very guilty man trying to hide evidence.

 

[Gigantor]

It may SEEM that way. But it is absolutely hilarious how very few of the Essendon supporters see Hird's Federal court attempt and subsequent appeal as SEEMINGLY looking like a very guilty man trying to hide evidence.

AT, but that is a matter for EFC supporters to contemplate.

You and I are free to ponder things from all angles, completely unhindered by sentiment.

 

[gutsroy]

Multiple organizations have TB4 as a prohibited substance from their "check substance" tools, and the clauses will NEVER list ALL the substances that fall under them (thus being "catch-all" clauses. It is however stated repeatedly that if an item is not specifically identified then that does not mean that it is free to use and to contact the anti-doping agency in the region to verify its status.

EDITED
In terms of TB4, as I understand it (source: A Guide to the World Anti-Doping Code, Paul David, 2013), a substance's status is determined by the WADA list committee (comprised of 11 scientists?), on the basis that it satisfied at least two of the three criteria below under article 4.3, i.e. use of the substance of method:

• improves sport performance;
• is injurious to the athlete;
  
• is contrary to the spirit of sport.

The reason for the inclusion of the substance or method is not required to be recorded on the list / made publicly available. If a substance / method is included in the list, its use is normally prohibited across all sports which adopt the code.

Interestingly, as this was also discussed in this thread, the author goes on to state that the decision to include a substance / method in the prohibited list cannot be challenged by an athlete facing an ADRV on the grounds that the athlete argues that it does not satisfy the inclusion criteria in the athlete's view.
EDIT: He goes on to state (p.91) that challenges are possible for substances similar to a prohibited substance (as opposed to challenges to the decision whether to include a substance on the list)
He quotes CAS/2005/A - FINA vs Kreutzmann and the German Swimming Federation (see also footnote 15 of http://www.lk-k.com/data/document/r...ision-turin-winter-journal-intl-arb.-2006.pdf).

The catch-all provisions are an essential part of the code, which cases such as BALCO's 'the clear' illustrated, to prevent slightly modified designer drugs.

Just thought this might be of interest as it would contradict some assertions that the onus is on ASADA to prove that TB4's listing is warranted. EDIT: Or maybe not, see above, after reading all that, all I know for sure is my head hurts)

TLDR: Spot on, I reckon. But I've been wrong before and will be again, no doubt.

 

[threesixpio]

I haven't really paid attention to that side of things (just because it means nothing to Dank - what does he care if the AFL ban him), just remember someone saying last week both the NRL and AFL have already banned him.

This article (a couple of weeks old) implies Dank's matter is going before the tribunal:

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...charges-from-afl/story-fni5f22o-1227122804886

To be honest this make sense that there has to be a tribunal hearing for Dank but happy to be told otherwise.

 

[onemancyclone]

I haven't really paid attention to that side of things (just because it means nothing to Dank - what does he care if the AFL ban him), just remember someone saying last week both the NRL and AFL have already banned him.

Netball's still available to him. Gonna be some hulking great big goal keeping bitches ready to bring the paaain.

 

[threesixpio]

Yep 13.1 says that after an IN is issued it must be sent to the tribunal for determination so Dank's matter must be going there

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

At the end of the day, ASADA have attempted to subpoena Alavi and Charters, because they are crucial to ASADA's case. ASADA need both to sign affidavits and be reliable witnesses at the anti-doping tribunal. To think otherwise is ignoring the obvious.

I think otherwise and I think that you are ignoring the obvious.

And neither of us are any more correct than the other, at this point in time.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Netball's still available to him. Gonna be some hulking great big goal keeping bitches ready to bring the paaain.

his money is in old farts in denial, gym junkies, and sportsman looking for off the record "advice"

an asada ban is simply an advertisement for new business

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Interestingly, as this was also discussed in this thread, the author goes on to state that the decision to include a substance / method in the prohibited list cannot be challenged by an athlete facing an ADRV on the grounds that the athlete argues that it does not satisfy the inclusion criteria in the athlete's view. He quotes CAS/2005/A - FINA vs Kreutzmann and the German Swimming Federation (see also footnote 15 of http://www.lk-k.com/data/document/r...ision-turin-winter-journal-intl-arb.-2006.pdf).

The catch-all provisions are an essential part of the code, which cases such as BALCO's 'the clear' illustrated, to prevent slightly modified designer drugs.

Just thought this might be of interest as it would contradict some assertions that the onus is on ASADA to prove that TB4's listing is warranted.

TLDR: Spot on, I reckon. But I've been wrong before and will be again, no doubt.

The case you cite above has no relevance to the current TB4 issue. It is true that the inclusion of a specific substance/method in "the prohibited list" cannot be challenged by an athlete. However "the prohibited list" in that context is the WADA Prohibited List. The case you cite involved the substance finasteride which was at that time (it was explicitly on the WADA list between 2005 and 2009) explicitly listed in the WADA Prohibited List and thus it's prohibition could not be challenged by the athlete. TB4 is not explicitly listed on the WADA Prohibited List and the no challenge rule clearly does not apply.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The case you cite above has no relevance to the current TB4 issue. It is true that the inclusion of a specific substance/method in "the prohibited list" cannot be challenged by an athlete. However "the prohibited list" in that context is the WADA Prohibited List. The case you cite involved the substance finasteride which was at that time (it was explicitly on the WADA list between 2005 and 2009) explicitly listed in the WADA Prohibited List and thus it's prohibition could not be challenged by the athlete. TB4 is not explicitly listed on the WADA Prohibited List and the no challenge rule clearly does not apply.

Are you still on about this?

Have you contacted the eminent Dr Thevis yet to ask him for the WADA take on it?

 

[threesixpio]

The case you cite above has no relevance to the current TB4 issue. It is true that the inclusion of a specific substance/method in "the prohibited list" cannot be challenged by an athlete. However "the prohibited list" in that context is the WADA Prohibited List. The case you cite involved the substance finasteride which was at that time (it was explicitly on the WADA list between 2005 and 2009) explicitly listed in the WADA Prohibited List and thus it's prohibition could not be challenged by the athlete. TB4 is not explicitly listed on the WADA Prohibited List and the no challenge rule clearly does not apply.

How come you didn't reply to my take on it a couple of pages back?

 

[Bobby Charlton]

They do not conduct studies themselves. They review the current literature and then decide which drugs fall into which categories. The panel may not have put TB4 by name into the S2 classification because they felt the catch all clause captures it 100%. They cannot possibly list each new drug individually or else the list would be too long. The WADA code gives us categories of drugs. It does not profess to name every drug. As such, it says that you should check with your local authority (ASADA) for individual drugs. ASADA had been advidsed that TB4 was caught by the catch all clause in the S2 category by WADA and so they added this to their banned list when checking drugs. Does that make sense?

It makes no sense at all.
You originally stated:

It is banned because a panel of international experts have deemed it comes under the S2 catch all phrase.

You now state that "The panel may not have put TB4 by name into the S2 classification".
There is no other way that the panel could have put TB4 into the S2 classification other by than by mentioning its name. It is a unique substance and its identification is essential if it is to be classified.
You also now claim that WADA advised ASADA that TB4 is an S2 substance. I suggest you made that up.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

How come you didn't reply to my take on it a couple of pages back?

TB4 is not listed in the WADA Prohibited list.

 

[threesixpio]

AND (I will admit I am punching way outside of my weight now and request help from Ancient Tiger here) the list is not exhaustive:

http://list.wada-ama.org/list/s2-peptide-hormones-growth-factors-and-related-substances/#vascular-endothelial growth factor (VEGF)

Additional prohibited growth factor:

• Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs); Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF); Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) and its analogues; Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs); Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF); Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) and any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching.

This post Bobby

 

[coryne]

The case you cite above has no relevance to the current TB4 issue. It is true that the inclusion of a specific substance/method in "the prohibited list" cannot be challenged by an athlete. However "the prohibited list" in that context is the WADA Prohibited List. The case you cite involved the substance finasteride which was at that time (it was explicitly on the WADA list between 2005 and 2009) explicitly listed in the WADA Prohibited List and thus it's prohibition could not be challenged by the athlete. TB4 is not explicitly listed on the WADA Prohibited List and the no challenge rule clearly does not apply.

What evidence do you base this theory on? Any examples from the past? Or is this based on your/Hardies interpretation of the rules?

 

[threesixpio]

That's from the WADA list

 

[onemancyclone]

It's banned, get over it.

 

[hfchfc]

It's a circumstantial case.

An important part of the circumstantial case is Charter/Alavi getting TB4 to Dank as Dank the individual (and not Dank, a director of MRC). Charter/Alavi are crucial in testifying that Dank's involvement was NOT as a director of MRC.

If there is no evidence of Charter/Alavi getting TB4 to Dank the individual - there's no case.

So Yes, without doubt, Cahrter/Alavi are not just the key witnesses. They are THE witnesses.

Furthermore, the AFLPA has already told us it's the "same old stuff", ie precisely what ASADA had back in August 2013.

Lastly, there's a good reason why ASADA has taken supreme court action on the eve of the tribunal hearing, because they are cactus without Charter and Alavi's testimony.

In proving Dank's involvement as an individual and not as a directory of MRC, Charter and Alavi must testify in person, what Charter and Alavi said back in August 2013 is not good enough, and thus why:

• ASADA tried to gild the lily with their statements; and
• ASADA is taking supreme court action.

Ok, you have now repeated yourself 201 times. Give the cut and paste a spell champ. The evidence is not restricted to two people. Everyone except you can see that. The case does not to get to he tribunal if there is no evidence!

 

[hfchfc]

TB4 is not listed in the WADA Prohibited list.

Why's it matter if the players didn't take it, why are you even arguing the point of its legality?? Oh, that's right, because they did take it ...

 

[threesixpio]

This post Bobby

Hello BC?

 

[gutsroy]

The case you cite above has no relevance to the current TB4 issue. It is true that the inclusion of a specific substance/method in "the prohibited list" cannot be challenged by an athlete. However "the prohibited list" in that context is the WADA Prohibited List. The case you cite involved the substance finasteride which was at that time (it was explicitly on the WADA list between 2005 and 2009) explicitly listed in the WADA Prohibited List and thus it's prohibition could not be challenged by the athlete. TB4 is not explicitly listed on the WADA Prohibited List and the no challenge rule clearly does not apply.

Hi, think you're on to something there, had already edited the original post to add some additional details with regard to that aspect.

 

[threesixpio]

TB4 is not listed in the WADA Prohibited list.

It's not specially mentioned on the list but fits into a category on the list - therefore it's on the list

 

[Ancient Tiger]

It makes no sense at all.
You originally stated:
You now state that "The panel may not have put TB4 by name into the S2 classification".
There is no other way that the panel could have put TB4 into the S2 classification other by than by mentioning its name. It is a unique substance and its identification is essential if it is to be classified.
You also now claim that WADA advised ASADA that TB4 is an S2 substance. I suggest you made that up.

You obviously have no training in pharmacology. Everything I have said is consistent. TB-4 is not unique. Substances like VEGF, FGF-1 and FGF-2 all promote vacularization just like TB-4. There are also drugs that use viral vectors to manipulate genes and promote vacularization.
Your selective quoting skills are poor too. If you read what I wrote carefully you would have realized that I was indicating that WADA did not list it by name but obviously mentioned it by name to ASADA. Because it clearly transgresses the S2 rule re vacularization they informed WADA that it was S2 prohibited. ASADA promptly put it on their prohibited check list.

I haven't made any of this up. Your background in science is obviously limited so I probably shouldn't be too harsh on your ignorance.